05 Conway Review.

qxp_Admin 68-3 24/08/2020 13:21 Page 63

Administration, vol. 68, no. 3 (2020), pp. 63–68

doi: 10.2478/admin-2020-0017

Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm

Jacob Torfing, B. Guy Peters, Jon Pierre and Eva Sørensen (Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2019; ISBN: 978-0-199596-75-1; 273 pp;
£66.99)

First published in 2012, the reissuing of Interactive Governance:

Advancing the Paradigm reflects not only the enduring esteem held in
academic circles for its authors but also the continued importance
of the text’s commentaries around interactive governance for
policymakers and elected officials. Resulting from the collaboration of
Pierre and Peters, and Sørensen and Torfing, this book explains the
interactive governance process, whilst acknowledging the increasingly
engaged citizenry and failing trust in government that challenge the
role of public leadership in Western countries today.
An introductory chapter establishes the authors’ position, positing
both government and governance as integral to the governing of the
modern state. A strong argument is made asserting the importance of
understanding governance processes, highlighting the role of such
processes in dealing with increasingly complex issues in policy and
public service delivery. This chapter sets out the themes and
arguments to be presented over the course of twelve chapters, from a
review of the literature around governance in the social sciences to the
definition of ‘metagovernance’ and analysis of governance in the
context of democratic participation and accountability. The early
chapters of this book build to the concept of metagovernance,
explored at length in Chapter Seven.
Chapter One examines the various debates around governance in
contemporary literature. Three oft-repeated criticisms of governance
– that it occurs only marginally, that it is a dated phenomenon and
therefore does not require new consideration by researchers, and that
it is a regrettable process – are strongly refuted, lending credibility to
the authors’ arguments for the relevance of studying interactive

63
05 Conway Review.qxp_Admin 68-3 24/08/2020 13:21 Page 64

64 Review

governance. The chapter provides a robust definition for ‘interactive

governance’ as a ‘complex process through which a plurality of social
and political actors with diverging interests interact in order to
formulate, promote, and achieve common objectives by means of
mobilizing, exchanging and deploying a range of ideas, rules and
resources’. This definition prompts considerable questions and
thereby interesting material for consideration over the course of the
book. The authors chart the history of governance and highlight the
increased prevalence of governance as an important area of study in a
multitude of policy areas, as well as the recent growth of government-
led support for governance processes.
Elaborating upon these themes, Chapter Two examines the distinct
definitions of ‘governance’ employed in different social sciences.
Arguing against the perception of governance as a stretched concept
or empty signifier, the authors examine the varied understandings of
governance and use the common features to enhance their definition.
International relations appears to be the field with the most to offer to
our understanding of governance. In the international arena there is
no true source of legitimate authority. In the absence of a legitimate
authority, all countries become actors in networks that may be more or
less formal, with more or less power for enforcement. Relatively brief
consideration of developmental studies, urban politics, economics and
legal theory (amongst other fields) raises questions about the capacity
of governance mechanisms to emerge of their own accord – without
government support. This contributes to the core argument that
governance is not a replacement for government – it is a process that
requires control by government.
The third chapter contemplates the relationship between power,
politics and governance. The contributors highlight the absence of
consideration of power and politics in contemporary literature around
governance. They argue that governance is a power-ridden process,
with power relations and political conflicts impacting both its
processes and results. This chapter contributes to the concept of
metagovernance through its consideration of attempts to exercise
power over governance. It identifies some means by which
governments may seek to (meta)govern governance processes –
opening or closing governance processes, regulating access to
governance arenas, constructing agencies, framing interactions, and
assessing and revising interactive governance. This chapter’s
examination of power contributes to the recognition of governance as
a powerful tool for change. It also raises questions around the
democratisation of governance, which are addressed later in the book.
05 Conway Review.qxp_Admin 68-3 24/08/2020 13:21 Page 65

Review 65

Chapter Four is a shorter chapter which discusses the need to

measure governance processes. Like the development of a definition
for governance, creating a measure which reflects the intricacies of the
governance process has eluded many academics and practitioners.
Agreement on a definition is complicated by the numerous actors and
goals engaged in governance processes, and existing indicator systems
do not serve well to measure governance successes. In this chapter the
authors propose consideration of governance as continuous, and
thereby the use of process-tracing and qualitative methodologies to
analyse decision-making in governance. Despite raising some valuable
criticisms of existing measurements, the chapter does not provide a
new measurement (nor does it truly seek to).
The direction of power relations in governance is examined in
Chapter Five. Whereas in traditional models government leads top-
down, in governance actors work with and against more powerful and
less powerful actors. In governance, power relationships operate
‘diagonally’, or on a ‘zig-zag’. In this chapter the authors argue that the
interactive governance perspective offers a more comprehensive
model by which to interpret policy and politics than those explored in
the literature. The key ‘take-away’ raised here, however, is the
recognition that all governance occurs across various levels and
dimensions. The contributors highlight the EU as a ‘Pandora’s Box’ of
governance, because it demonstrates the many levels and intricate
patterns through which decision-making processes occur in
governance.
Issue networks are unlikely to self-organise organically – without
the support of government. Therefore, it may be necessary for
administrators or political leadership to institutionalise initial efforts
toward the creation of governance networks. Such is the central thesis
of Chapter Six, which focuses on the institutionalisation of
governance. In this chapter the authors posit that government support
is required to foster first governance proceedings, which may then self-
perpetuate if the initial experience is a success. This chapter cautions
repeatedly against the over-institutionalisation of governance,
asserting that while stability benefits governance, rigidity or excessive
stability may hamper efforts. Whilst acknowledging that interactive
governance may reduce state power, the emphasis is here placed on
the capacity that the state retains vis-à-vis governance networks in a
hierarchy of power.
That capacity is examined in detail in Chapter Seven, which reflects
on metagovernance and its objectives, means and implications. At the
05 Conway Review.qxp_Admin 68-3 24/08/2020 13:21 Page 66

66 Review

outset of the chapter, the concept is defined as the deliberate attempt

to facilitate and manage the largely self-regulating processes of
interactive governance, without recourse to statist styles of
government. Indeed, while the authors maintain that elected
governments must lend direction to interactive governance processes,
they argue against the use of command or the undermining of self-
regulation. Metagovernance – and the arguments around it – is
discussed at length, as the authors argue that interactive governance
does not reduce the role of government but rather is complementary
to government power. Discussion of the challenges to and limits of
metagovernance contributes to later examination of democratisation
and accountability in interactive governance.
Chapter Eight considers the impact of interactive governance on
the roles played by social and political actors, including citizens and
private actors. As there is no ‘before and after’ between government
and governance, old and new roles for actors – and expectations for
those roles – coexist. The ‘new’ role of the citizen in interactive
governance is perhaps the most altered; in interactive governance the
citizen becomes a co-producer of governance. This chapter
emphasises that this role change lends the citizen both power and
responsibility over policy and public service delivery. However, the
willingness of citizens to accept such responsibility is unclear.
Returning to the theme of measurement, the ninth chapter is
concerned with assessing the impact of interactive governance – and
especially network-type governance. It is maintained throughout that
interactive governance is not inherently effective or ineffective.
Rather, in this chapter the authors identify criteria against which to
measure the impact of governance, capturing the specific expectations
around network governance in the literature. The chapter serves
metagovernors well by identifying means by which they may improve
the efficiency of network governance. The criteria for measuring
impact remain ‘loose’, and empirical assessment of impact remains a
critical challenge to researchers and practitioners.
Chapter Ten focuses on the democratic quality of interactive
governance and argues that the processes involved are neither
inherently democratic nor undemocratic. The chapter reviews the
many arguments offered in the literature, from the supposition that
interactive governance undermines political equality to its
empowering of disenfranchised populations. In drawing on part of
Sørensen and Torfing’s earlier work, the chapter moves to identify
how a metagovernor may influence the course of decision-making in
05 Conway Review.qxp_Admin 68-3 24/08/2020 13:21 Page 67

Review 67

the interactive governance process. However, it is also noted that a

politician may choose not to assert his or her role as metagovernor in
a given policy area. Citizens may also decline to participate in
interactive governance, and the under-representation of some
population groups in governance processes ought to be considered
critically in light of the literature around participatory government and
representation.
Differentiating between transparency in process and in outcomes,
Chapter Eleven argues that a lack of transparency is not always a
fundamentally negative thing in governing. Indeed, the authors
consider the lines between secrecy and efficiency, and the advantages
and risks that may derive from governing in the most transparent
manner. As a ‘messy’, and often less institutionalised, governing
mechanism, interactive governance may afford actors better
opportunities to evade acting transparently than those afforded by
traditional government. The authors advocate for a distinction to be
made between secrecy for the protection of an autocratic government
and secrecy to promote efficiency or democracy. However, without
transparency one process may catalyse the other. The final chapter
surmises the arguments made in the book and elaborates the research
agenda that awaits development.
The text does not advise the aspiring metagovernor on how to
engage those citizens who do not trust the traditional institutions or
power of the state. Such citizens are engaged in protests and protest-
voting and may refuse to engage with interactive governance processes
initiated or led by government as metagovernor. While failing trust in
government and traditional institutions is manifest across Western
countries – not least in the US where anti-statist discourse has become
increasingly extensive – the occupation of the metagovernor role by
government may be rejected, and thereby hamper the power of
interactive governance. The contributors reflect upon such
developments in the foreword to the 2019 edition, and also discuss
governance in light of the rise of populism. To defend governance
against populism, they suggest emphasising democratic cooperation
and promoting governance as a way to ‘influence our life quality’.
The reissuing of this book likely reflects the status of its
contributors, but the relevance of its message is of increasing
importance as the extension of interactive governance continues
across all levels of government and into various policy areas. Any
actor, private or public, who seeks to become engaged in the
interactive governance process will find a relative degree of optimism
05 Conway Review.qxp_Admin 68-3 24/08/2020 13:21 Page 68

68 Review

in Interactive Governance. The narrative presented is confident about

the power of interactive governance to effect change, yet realistic
about its limited potential in ‘failed states’. Indeed, Interactive
Governance may best serve elected politicians who seek to maintain
the traditional power and leadership of traditional government in their
new capacity as metagovernor.

Sarah Conway